340 So.3d 985
La. Ct. App.2021Background
- On September 27, 2018, Michael Ellis was a passenger/helper in a Circle L trucking 18-wheeler that hydroplaned and rolled; he sued Circle L and its insurer, Employers Mutual Casualty Company (EMC), for personal injuries.
- Ellis had signed an independent contractor agreement with Circle L identifying him as an independent contractor and waiving employee benefits.
- EMC moved for summary judgment, arguing Ellis was a Circle L employee and thus excluded from coverage under EMC’s Business Auto policy (employee and workers' compensation exclusions).
- Evidence showed Ellis worked ~2 weeks as a helper, was paid $100 per day, received directions and training from Circle L drivers/owner, used company tools/equipment, had set start times and assignments, and could be terminated for not performing.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for EMC, finding Ellis was an employee and excluded from coverage; the First Circuit affirmed and dismissed Ellis’s claims with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature of relationship: employee vs independent contractor | Ellis: signed independent contractor agreement; employment status is a factual issue for the factfinder | EMC: actual working relationship shows employer control (training, directions, tools, schedule, pay), so Ellis is an employee | Court: Ellis was an employee as a matter of law—agreement insufficient to overcome undisputed facts of control; no genuine issue of material fact |
| Insurance coverage: does EMC policy exclude Ellis’s claims? | Ellis: if independent contractor, exclusion should not apply | EMC: policy excludes bodily injury to an employee; exclusion applies here (and workers’ comp exclusion also argued) | Court: Employee exclusion applies; summary judgment proper and claim barred (concurrence noted workers’ comp statute would also likely apply even if independent contractor) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hickman v. Southern Pacific Transport Co., 262 So.2d 385 (La. 1972) (sets multi-factor test for distinguishing employees from independent contractors)
- Hines v. Garrett, 876 So.2d 764 (La. 2004) (summary judgment: no credibility determinations; only genuine issues of material fact preclude judgment)
- Prejean v. McMillan, 274 So.3d 575 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2019) (appellate de novo review of summary judgment)
- Collins v. Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady Health System, Inc., 298 So.3d 191 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2020) (no single factor is dispositive; examine totality of circumstances and right of control)
- Womack v. Maray Productions, L.L.C., 298 So.3d 745 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2020) (insurance policy interpretation is a legal question suitable for summary judgment)
- Tower Credit, Inc. v. Carpenter, 825 So.2d 1125 (La. 2002) (discusses independent-contractor analysis and related principles)